Meaning from without and within

“The meaning of life is whatever you make it” fails to work in practice, because it does not consider the social/cultural aspects that make up an individual. The individual must first overcome their culture, otherwise whatever meaning ‘they make’ will only be a notion of meaning prevalent in that culture, and most likely superficial and disingenuous.

Meaning, if it is to be true, cannot be imposed by the individual on the world; the world must impose it on the individual. An individual must first learn to see the world with new eyes, then they will see a new world that will infuse them with meaning. Meaning must come from without, it must ‘possess’ the individual.

The meaning of life for the possessed is genuine, i.e., it is reflected in the individual everyday’s actions and committments. This meaning is found through a journey or process of skeptical, philosophical exploration and analysis. The journey comes from within. It will involve questioning, critically analysing and undermining societal norms, values and ‘herd behaviour’. Along the journey, much time will be spent in the desert. A new world will be found at the end of this journey and the meaning therein will possess the individual.

The journey toward the meaning of life comes from within. The meaning of life, when found, comes from without.

Philosophy in a nutshell

Philosophy without reference to practical self-reflective  psychology and social psychology is bunk.

This statement goes against much of the philosophical tradition, but in modern times it has gained more currency. There are still philosophers out there who are theologian-like, believing that objects have an existence outside of the mental model they have constructed. What these theo-philosophers fail to see is that they have made things up. They have pulled their theories out of their arses. This applies to their ‘reason’ also.

Reason claims to begin with premises that supposedly needs no justification. Taking the premise, the philosopher makes inferences to a conclusion.

In fact, the philosopher already has a conclusion in mind; perhaps not in detail, but in broad outline/context/perspective. This determines the premises chosen and influences the inference process with bias. The conclusion therefore is not an objective, God’s eye view of the world (which of course doesn’t exist), but a perspective with some formal and quite boring flourishes. I need not give an example of how some philosophers have ‘reasoned their way to God’, when in fact they were just rationalising their pre-conceived perspective.

Reason is bunk unless the mental model/perspective can make predictions that are subsequently useful to the senses, ergo the popularity of the scientific method. However, the mental model being evaluated as useful to the senses doesn’t mean it is objective, and doesn’t mean that other mental models may be equally or more useful. Philosophy is not about finding and justifying the one, true (i.e. useful) mental model of the world through reason, but evaluating, deciding on and prioritising those perspectives that are most useful to human life and living them out. In short, philosophy is about wise perspectives and loving these, living these, because you love life.

Philosophers and those who purport to be

An interesting piece by Maverick Philosopher, Philosophy as Hobby, as Career, as Vocation, has me thinking about how unself-reflective those who claim the label of “philosopher” can be. Philosophers like to think of their engagements in the most noble, socially-acceptable terms; that is human (or rather, ape). In this, they abuse concepts, such as ‘reason’ and ‘academic rigour’, by using them as endowments which they can lend to their work in order to grant it divine authority.

An honest assessment would be that most philosophers, especially academic ones, engage in ‘philosophical activities’ primarily out of a desire for social status; a primitive motivation. This motivation is evidenced when philosophers come to think that following formal styles and academic standards is more important than the life-impact of their work.

Perhaps no one can escape the motivation of social status in their philosophical pursuits. If that be the case, at least the philosopher should be honest in recognising it. They should attend more of their writings to the pursuit of social status (e.g. as Aristotle did as part of pursuit of the Good Life), rather than pursuing itself by way of pretentious talk on topics not related to it (in the social status game of academic publishing) and having no impact on how we live our lives.

Aboriginal philosophy: lessons to be had

Aboriginal Philosophy:

In contemporary times, in the context of ongoing colonisation, we tend to measure other cultures against the lifestyles and values of the modern capitalist consumer societies. An alternative would be to measure the worth of societies and their philosophical bases by considering their longevity. A feature of many early civilisations is that they have sealed their own doom by an exploitation of the natural environment.{1} By contrast, Aboriginal civilisation has been notable for its survival over at least 80,000 years.

The key to this survival lies in Aboriginal philosophy, expressed in religious practice that has been paramount in peoples’ day-to-day lives, informing all their actions. For any human society: ” religion represents a symbolic view of people and their universe which regulates their actions, supports them in crisis, orders their lives, gives their actions meaning and validity – it represents their conception of the world” (Eckerman 1995)

Reading this article makes you think of how shallow and defective Western philosophy/mythology is in regards to meeting the demands and constraints of our society and environment. We do not have a philosophy of life that will see us last; we barely have a philosophy of life at all. It is a safe bet that our civilisation (modern capitalist consumer) won’t be around for as long as that of Australian Aborigines. Yet, us moderns still tend to look down on such civilisations with derision. Our values are very messed up.

Subject, verb and object: all in the mind

Psyblog states:

It seems likely that this left to right bias has its roots in language (although not everyone agrees, cf. Chatterjee, 2001). Evidence for this comes from people who speak languages written from right to left like Arabic or Urdu who, sure enough, display the same bias, but in the opposite direction.

There is another left to right bias in the basic syntax of language: the vast majority of languages describe events in the order subject, verb, object (with the notable exception of the passive tense).

Together these two facts mean we not only look to the left first, but we also expect the subject to be on the left, and the object to its right. Subjects are by definition active ‘do-ers’ while objects are the passive receivers of the do-ers’ actions.

With the metaphysical notion of time, we have constructed the concepts of causation, subject, action/force, and object. Objectivity (‘what’)  is supposedly represented by the sciences, whereas subjectivity (‘how’) is the domain of personal interpretation and relation. While Hume took an axe to causation, Nietzsche blew up the roots of these distinctions with dynamite, declaring that objectivity itself is but a subjective misinterpretation that we cannot live without. Pragmatists such as John Dewey and William James deflated the whole bloated philosophical tradition of ontology and epistemology, and focused on what mattered most, namely human needs. I follow in their footsteps and maintain that we should use these categories wisely.

We see ourselves (subject) as acting on the world (object) in time. We therefore assume that we are agents with ‘free will’. From a utilitarian viewpoint this is best. However, it may shadow the way in which the world acts on us. We may not recognise how culture can dominate our decisions and actions, and in such moments we are not truly free. We may become slaves to our narrow-minded way of viewing the world.

Philosophy, such as that from Hume and Nietzsche, can set you free, but you have to be ready for the initally uncomfortable journey. Your cherished assumptions will be exposed as dogma, your values will be overhauled, and you will be left in the wilderness for a while. But then you can go back into the world and create your own meanings and values on a solid foundation. In doing so you will experience the joy of a free spirit.

The ends of philosophy

Knowledge, if Dr Dewey is right, cannot be any part of the ends of life; it is merely a means to other satisfactions. This view, to those who have been much engaged in the pursuit of knowledge, is distasteful.

Bertrand Russell implies that means are ‘mere’ in this case, obviously for rhetorical effect; as if the journey was always so unimportant and disappointing compared to the destination. He is mistaken in thinking that philosophy must have its ends in itself in order for the philosopher to have any joy along the way.

Bertie finds Dewey’s view of knowledge as serving pragmatic ends distasteful, and admits that he could be illogical in thinking so. He never bluntly says why he finds such a view distasteful, but, as one could easily imagine, it would wreak havoc on the self-image of a earnest, self-important philosopher who engaged in academic, artificial puzzles that rarely bore any pragmatic fruit.

Bertie should have been more philosophical in considering the ends of philosophy, rather than letting his ego get in the way. We might have had something of significance from him, instead we get only a preacher to those converted to his speculative, pointless way of life.

When does an interest in philosophy become vulgar conceptual consumption?

Aristotle considered contemplation/philosophy an end in itself, but was he just an addict to conceptual consumption?

Perhaps the dopamine rush due to the expectation of finding a magical conceptual key to an undefined treasure kept him hooked? (Hence his praise of ‘wonder’, which is the curiosity-interest-expectancy dopamine system in disguise). It is clear that many philosophers engage with superficial and artificial problems merely to mentally masturbate, because it feels good.

Philosophy must serve an end and that end is life. Don’t get hooked on the drug of wonder and forsake it for everything else.

A quick guide to the reading of philosophical texts

This guide is to assist you in deciding what to concern yourself reading. Follow these heuristics:

• The length of a text on a particular topic, beyond a certain extent, is inversely proportional to what significant things it has to say. Long-winded, rambling texts don’t communicate important points in ways that are memorable. If one cannot easily remember the key points of a text it will be difficult, nay impossible, to implement them in daily life. Words are only significant if they can be applied to the means and ends of life.
• If some point could have been made with less words than those used, the philosopher has overrated their attention-worthiness and mistaken their audience for people who don’t have clear aims in reading them.
• The degree of formal references to others, particularly to academics, is inversely proportional to the creativity and value of the text in terms of unique insights. (Group norms kill creativity.)
• The use of much philosophical jargon and overly formal style points to a lack of communication skills on part of the philosopher and heightened irrelevance to the life of the everyday citizen of anything they may say
• Avoid at all costs texts which talk about issues and concepts only of interest to philosophers; there is no wisdom in store
• Philosophy is often used by nerds as a means by which to impress others with their supposed intellectual superiority and to gain status amongst peers. Consider what self-concept the writer may be trying to project with their text. You may get more ego than content.
• If the reputation of the philosopher precedes the text, rest assured that the text is not as good as the cult surrounding its authority believe
• If from the opening paragraph of  a text you do not infer practical wisdom for your life on offer, put the text down and find something worth reading

The problem of philosophy: relevance

Isaiah Berlin knew it:

…he found the philosophy as it was practiced in the years immediately after the Second World War in Britain, and particularly in Oxford, lacking in the human relevance that he needed in a subject, lacking in the connection with human dilemmas. I mean one could even say and this of course was anathema to philosophers, then, and still is to some extent today, that he wanted to practice and study and examine and explore a type of thinking which shed light on the dilemmas of human life. In the very last conversation I had with him before he died, I asked him whether there was a single thinker or writer or philosopher who had influenced him more than any other, and without a single second of hesitation, he said ‘Herzen’. In other words, he didn’t mention a philosopher such as David Hume or John Stuart Mill, or any of the philosophers, some of them whom he admired greatly, he immediately mentioned a radical writer rather than an academic philosopher, as one who had influenced him more than any other single writer or thinker.

One wonders if all that is left of philosophy is a bunch of dictionary editors and literary critics. The sophists of the Academy have truly ravaged it over the years, but you can’t keep a true thing down forever.

Conceptual analysis versus Situational analysis

Philosophy was at its zenith when it was more concerned about analysing situations, rather than analysing concepts (refer to the Greco-Roman Moralists). Of course, conceptual analysis is a form of situational analysis; it is one of escaping the material reality of a situation into a conceptual, constructed fantasy-world. Little wonder that Nietzsche called it decadent.